Re: [PATCH v2 net 0/5] net: ipa: minor bug fixes

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:50:52 -0500 Alex Elder wrote:
> On 10/29/20 11:11 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:41:43 -0500 Alex Elder wrote:  
> >> This series fixes several bugs.  They are minor, in that the code
> >> currently works on supported platforms even without these patches
> >> applied, but they're bugs nevertheless and should be fixed.  
> > 
> > By which you mean "it seems to work just fine most of the time" or "the
> > current code does not exercise this paths/functionally these bugs don't
> > matter for current platforms".  
> 
> The latter, although for patch 3 I'm not 100% sure.
> 
> Case by case:
> Patch 1:
>    It works.  I inquired what the consequence of passing this
>    wrong buffer pointer was, and for the way we are using IPA
>    it seems it's fine--the memory pointer we were assigning is
>    not used, so it's OK.  But we're assigning the wrong pointer.
> Patch 2:
>    It works.  Even though the bit field is 1 bit wide (not two)
>    we never actually write a value greater than 1, so we don't
>    cause a problem.  But the definition is incorrect.
> Patch 3:
>    It works, but on the SDM845 we should be assigning the endpoints
>    to use resource group 1 (they are 0 by default).  The way we
>    currently use this upstream we don't have other endpoints
>    competing for resources, so I think this is fine.  SC7180 we
>    will assign endpoints to resource group 0, which is the default.
> Patch 4:
>    It works.  This is like patch 2; we define the number of these
>    things incorrectly, but the way we currently use them we never
>    exceed the limit in a broken way.
> Patch 5:
>    It works.  The maximum number of supported groups is even,
>    and if a (smaller) odd number are used the remainder are
>    programmed with 0, which is appropriate for undefined
>    fields.
> 
> If you have any concerns about back-porting these fixes I
> think I'm comfortable posting them for net-next instead.
> I debated that before sending them out.  Please request that
> if it's what you think would be best.

Looks like these patches apply cleanly to net-next, so I put them there.

Thanks!